<<  <  >  >>

Page 20

In sum, we think it untenable to conclude that there are no judicially enforceable

limitations on presidential actions, besides actions that run afoul of the Constitution or

which contravene direct statutory prohibitions, so long as the President claims that he is

acting pursuant to the Procurement Act in the pursuit of governmental savings. Yet this is what

the government would have us do. Its position would permit the President to bypass scores of

statutory limitations on governmental authority, and we therefore reject it. [Ibid. at 1332.]

It does not seem to us possible to deny that the President's Executive Order seeks to set a

broad policy governing the behavior of thousands of American companies and affecting millions

of American workers. The President has, of course, acted to set procurement policy rather than

labor policy. But the former is quite explicitly based--and would have to be based--on his views

of the latter. For the premise of the Executive Order is the proposition that the permanent

replacement of strikers unduly prolongs and widens strikes and disrupts the proper "balance"

between employers and employees. Whether that proposition is correct, or whether the prospect

of permanent replacements deters strikes, and therefore an employer's right to permanently

replace strikers is simply one element in the relative bargaining power of management and

organized labor, is beside the point. Whatever one's views on the issue, it surely goes to the heart

of United States labor relations policy. [Ibid. at 1337.]

No state or federal official or government entity can alter the delicate balance of bargaining and

economic power that the NLRA establishes, whatever his or its purpose may be.